Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: permanence ('cannot be undone'), cascading deletion ('all its associated content'), admin scope requirement, and the return shape. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate, with no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences front-load the most critical information: permanence, irreversibility, and the explicit confirmation requirement. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation, the description covers the essential operational details: irreversibility, cascading content deletion, admin auth requirement, user confirmation gate, and return values. Combined with the rich input schema and output schema, nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for display_id, access_token, and session_request_id. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently deletes a display and all its associated content.' It clearly identifies the action and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like clear_display or remove_display_from_org, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this only when the user explicitly confirms they want to remove the display,' plus the admin scope requirement. It does not enumerate alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the confirmation gate is strong enough guidance for a destructive action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.